Posted on 03/03/2007 1:05:48 PM PST by gpapa
Next year may see the party of the Sunbelt and Reagan, based in the South and in Protestant churches, nominate its first presidential candidate who is Catholic, urban, and ethnic--and socially liberal on a cluster of issues that set him at odds with the party's base. As a result, it may also see the end of the social issues litmus test in the Republican party, done in not by the party's left wing, which is shrunken and powerless, but by a fairly large cadre of social conservatives convinced that, in a time of national peril, the test is a luxury they cannot afford.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I'm feeling that way multiplied by a thousand right now, when I see the front runner candidates I will most likely get to choose from. I like Duncan Hunter, and he performed very well at the SC straw poll (for somebody with no name recognition) - BUT YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW IT THE NEXT DAY ON THE NEWS. Talk about shutting someone out!
I did pick up on subtle little things the next day though - the front runners must not have performed as well as they had hoped - because now they are all busy trying to get Fred Thompson's name out there - maybe we'll fall for a movie star!
The smug assumptions that I will, in the end - vote for whoever they put there, no matter what - are starting to wear pretty thin.
Yep, I know just how you feel.
LOL. If we were half as famous as any of them, I don't think I'd WANT to hold office.
You think Michael Moore would ever call Rudy a faggot?
The shift in the Catholic vote helped the dems take over Congress in the Senate and House in 2006.
Hey, if it will make the Weekly Standard happy, lets, well, wait, let's not make the Weekly Standard happy, because they stopped making us happy a while ago.
But if I were to point to a single position of Mr. Giuliani's as line in the sand for me, it would be his odious stance on gun control. I won't provide money or time to an anti-gun candidate, particularly one as strenuously anti-gun as Mr. Giuliani.
One thing I haven't seen from Gulliani Supporters is why we should put our faith in Gulliani to act in opposition to his own beliefs, when we could pick a candidate that actually believes in life and would therefore act in accordance to his own principles.
Are the other republican candidates soft on the war on terror?
One of the things I like most about Rudy is that you know where he stands on some of the difficult, divisive issues, and he doesn't try to claim he's something he's not. Newt, OTOH, has a big problem with practicing what he preaches. He's a brilliant man, but I have a much harder time forgiving his womanizing than I do Rudy, who never tried to set himself up as a holier than thou alternative.
Not myself, or the others that I know.
Under certain circumstances I suppose that I would vote for Rudy, just not in this lifetime.
FReepers are a small minority - my wife is the registered Repub in the family and she thinks this site is a little too much. I'd say her perspective mirrors the vast middle-right electorate.
That being said, I got her to watch CSPAN's re-broadcast of Rudy's CPAC speech last night. Boy, did that get her going and reminiscing; she vividly remembers Rudy's no-nonsense personality and single-minded focus.
If we get him going after Islamofacists like he went the Gambinos, then we will surely win the WoT. Best of all, he can clearly advocate why & what we're doing without any apologies. He'd eviscerate the NYT and all the other MSM traitors who want the US to lose.
AMEN!!!!!!!!!!
If that happens, we will also see the largest collection of people to ever have a simultaneous stroke! Right here on FR! Come back in a year - Same Freep Time, Same Freep Channel!!!
indeed.
Why do you think that is our choice at this point? We are a year out from the primaries, and almost 2 from the election.
It's a little early to be settling, isn't it, when there are several candidates already in the running that give you more than Gulliani does?
It's one thing to argue that, if the election were tomorrow and the two candidates were gulliani and hillary that we would have to chose the lesser of two evils.
But why would I choose evil NOW, before the primaries, against several highly-qualified candidates who are not evil?
BTW, I suppose it goes without saying that I disagree on the "80%" number. Heck, the good conservatives in this race hardly give me more than 80% of what I want.
"That's sick" is hardly a good answer to the question. I don't agree with the opinion that Rudy is a shell game on terrorism, but it's a fair question, and one that the Rudy supporters ought to be able to knock out of the park.
"That's sick" seems more to apply to Rudy's position on abortion and gays.
Has Pat called for any tornadoes to dodge anything lately?
Mitt Romney. :-)
No dice!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.